Sarotan Verma vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors

K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)

Through medium of this OA, the applicant had sought quashment of Annex.A-1 charged memo dated 26.04.2013, wherein it was alleged that the applicant had obtained her LTC Air Ticket from an unauthorized dealer, as also DE proceedings started pursuant to the charge memo.

This OA initially was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.04.2014 directing the respondents to complete DE proceedings within a period of six weeks. Since DE could not be completed within the given time frame, the respondents sought extension of time by way of MA No. 1831/2014, which was allowed and time for completing of DE was extended by four months. The respondents have failed to complete the proceedings even within the extended period and through another MA No. 3544/2014 sought further extension of time, which was denied by the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.11.2014. The said order of the Tribunal dated 18.11.2014 was challenged by the respondents before High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.1913/2015 & CM. 3427/2015, which was disposed on 27.10.2016 quashing the order of the Tribunal and granting three months time to the respondents to complete the DE proceedings.

The Hon'ble High Court has iterated in its order that if the DE proceedings are not completed within three months, the Tribunal after examining the facts, may direct closure the proceedings.

The respondents vide their additional affidavit dated 06.03.2017 have informed that DE proceedings have been concluded and final order dated 31.01.2017 has been passed imposing the penalty of withholding 5 % of monthly pension of the applicant for a period of one year. He thus submitted that this OA has become infructuous in view of passing of the final order.

Per contra, Mr. M.K Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the final order has been passed after expiry of the extended period of three months and as such the Tribunal to take a view in regard to directing closure of the proceedings.

We have considered the arguments of the parties. Since final order has been passed, this OA has become infructuous. Accordingly, this OA stands disposed of. However, the applicant is given liberty to take appropriate recourse to legal remedy, as available to her under law, in case, she is dissatisfied with the order of the 31.01.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that due to the pendency of the DE proceedings which ought to have been completed within a period of six months as per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar of High Court of Delhi & another (C.A. No. 958/2010 decided on 16.12.2015), the applicant has suffered heavy loss of interest on the retiral dues. He submits that applicant should be appropriately compensated. In this regard, we give liberty to the applicant to submit representation to the respondents within two weeks who shall give appropriate consideration to it and disposed of the same within a period of four weeks by way of passing of reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the same.